State Of Haryana Thr Executive Eng Public Health Eng D&Pdivi Modeltown Sonipat v. Sh.Surinder Singh &Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CWP-14997-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.12.2023 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER D&P DIVISION, MODEL TOWN, SONIPAT
...Petitioner
Versus
SHRI SURENDER SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :
Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ankush Goyat, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for respondent No.1.
HARSH BUNGER, J.
1.
! " #$%#$& '( &) * + *
# # , -#& " .
/ 0* " + * '
1 0* 2)# " " -#& " '3(.3 45* )&66%5# #
." $&#$7#&66 " . 5 &67'
1&672)# 0
"** 0* . &7#&&#$&& '( )8 *
. -#& "
" . %$9* " "
##$%#&#$$:# :# , .
* ## * 8. &%#$%#$& " " " " &7#&&#$&& '( ) "
*/. & , &67# 7#
*!
## " * * . &;#$:#$&7 '( &:)8* &7#&&#$&&'( ) "*" ** " " <# "# %#
" " *
-#&
.
&;#&&#$&7 '( &7)# #
*! #$#$&% -#&
::'
)') &67 " " & , &67 5# # # # 0
" -#& * " * 8 -#& * =
>'<#&7:: #"#) & , &67 " &%#$%#$& .?
& &7#&&#$&& :&#:#$&: &7:: <#:6$#$$ -#7&7: 5#$%#&$#$&: $&#$7#$&: 0 ;#$#$&7 &7:: <#&%:#$$ -#%&&7 5#&;#&&#$&7 ;# 0
::'
)') &67 *-#& "* * 0* * . #$%#$& '( &) * *. ?
!
" # $ % $ %
%% % & '()* #+ ,! ,-! .-! & , /! $! $ $ 0
1#*/223)% */**45**46445*/ 1 -7#)* -7#)4
$ $$1 & &
$ $$1
122)849 1$ $ 1 7 1$ 1 6 1 % $ $ 0#*/2255% $ % */**45** 2*245*2 */45*246445*/#42:5; #*< ;255 $ 1 % & $ 1 % 1* ) % $ 0 1
& = %. % 1 &1 %#*!2*!*66: $ $ $$1
: $% 1
1 1 % $
1 * )%>,"1 &%%
& $ 1 + 1 % ? @
%%1 !
& =
$ $ 45*48/9 #?)<; % +& . . 1 1 % 1
"# % % 1 &% % $ & % % %
+ % , . 1 $ 45*4>>) #);26 1 % A B$$ 8'
9
$ '3 " @ "A $$1
$ $$1& % 3* )%>,"1 *5 > % 1 1 & $ $$1
122)8491
1* ) % % & . = % $ 1 $ %% 1 1$ 1
%% 1 &% 11 #*!*2!464: 7 % % $ %
% 1 & 1 0:C$ $ D * 1
% %$$13 $ #- >-E ** " % !
1 $ $! % $ $$1 ( 1&1 %#*!*2!464: 7
% $%
!%1 & 1 0:CE & 1 1
% 1$1 F 6#
""
* # &$#
"
* &:#$#$& " #$%#$&'( &) ( # &&# + *" 0* *
" #$%#$& '( &)# *" 0* "" . * 2* "
! "
2* " " "= > "" " * * !* # *" 0* * ::'
)') &67 * -#& """ & , &67* * 2* " 8 " * # * *
" #$%#$&'( &)# &# @ -#& "
* * *" ."
/ "* *
# *" " * ( /# *"
" # &:#
. . * * # &7# In Dena Bank v. Kiritikumar T. Patel, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held as under:-
2. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') means wages drawn by a workman at the time of termination of his employment or wages which he would have drawn on the date of the award.
XXX XXX XXX
6. It would be convenient at this stage to set out the provisions contained in Section 17B of the Act which reads as under :
Section 17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts. - Where in any case a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been
employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court :
Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court or the Supreme Court that such workman had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof, the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be."
The objects and reasons for enacting the said provisions were as follows :
"When Labour Courts pass award of reinstatement, these are often contested by an employer in the Supreme Court or High Courts. It was felt that the delay in the implementation of the award causes hardship to the workman concerned. It was, therefore, proposed to provide the payment of wages last drawn by the workman concerned, under certain conditions, from the date of the award till the case is finally decided in the Supreme Court or High Courts."
It would thus appear that the object underlying the enacting of the provisions contained in Section 17B is to give relief to the workman in whose favour an award of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court and the said award is under challenge in the High Court or this Court. The said relief has been given with a view to relieve the hardship that would be caused to a workman on account of delay in implementation of the award as a result of the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or this Court. The question for consideration is : what is the extent to which such relief has been granted to a workman under this provision ? The objects and reasons do not indicate an answer to this question and its answer
has to be found in the provisions of the enactment. Since the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17B has been construed by the various High Courts in the decisions referred to above we would briefly refer to the same. XXX XXX XXX
17. As per the decisions of the High Courts referred to above the expression "full wages last drawn" in Section 17B can mean as under :
(i) wages only at the rate last drawn and not at the same rate at which the wages are being paid to the workmen who are actually working. [Daladdi Coop. Agriculture Service Society Ltd. v.
Gurcharan Singh].
(ii) Wages drawn on the date of termination of the services plus the yearly increment and the Dearness Allowance to be worked out till the date of the award. [Vishveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. v. M. Chandrappa and another and Kirtiben B.
Amin v. Mafatlal Apparels].
(iii) Full wages which the workman was entitled to draw in pursuance of the award and the implementation of which is suspended during the pendency of the proceedings. [Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Munakhan and others, Macneil and Magor Ltd. v. 1st Additional Labour Court and another and P. Channaiah v. Dy. Ex. Eng.]
18. The first construction gives to the words "full wages last drawn" their plain and material meaning. The second as well as the third constructions read something more than their plain and material meaning in these words. In substance these constructions read the words "full wages last drawn" as "full wages which would have been drawn". Such an extended meaning to the words "full wages last drawn" does not find support in the language of Section
17B. Nor can this extended meaning be based on the object underlying the enactment of Section 17B.
19. As indicated earlier Section 17B has been enacted by Parliament with a view to give relief to a workman who has been ordered to be reinstated under the award of a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal during the pendency of proceedings in which the said award is under challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The object underlying the provision is to relieve to a certain extent the hardship that is caused to the workman due to delay in the implementation of the award. The payment which is required to be made by the employer to the workman is in the nature of subsistence allowance which would not be refundable or recoverable from the workman even if the award is set aside by the High Court or this Court.
Since the payment is of such a character Parliament thought it proper to limit it to the extent of the wages which were drawn by the workman when he was in service and when his services were terminated and therefore used the words "full wages last drawn". To read these words to mean wages which would have been drawn by the workman if he had continued in service if the order terminating his services had not passed since it has been set aside by the award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, would result in so enlarging the benefit as to comprehend the relief that has been granted under the award that is under challenge.
Since the amount is not refundable or recoverable in the event of the award being set aside it would result in the employer being required to give effect to the award during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the award before the High Court or the Supreme Court without his being able to recover the said amount in the event of the award being set aside. We are unable to construe the provisions contained in Section 17B to cast such a burden on the employer.
therefore, the words "full wages last drawn" must be given their plain and material meaning and they cannot be given the extended meaning as given by the Karnataka High Court in Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. (supra) or the Bombay High Court in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (supra).
20. Shri Jitendra Sharma has laid emphasis on the word "full" in the expression "full wages last drawn" and has submitted that the said words implies that the wages last drawn must be the wages which the workman would have drawn under the award. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, the expression "full" only emphasizes that all the emoluments which are included in "wages" as defined in clause (ii) of section 2 of the Act so as to include the amounts referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) are required to be paid. In this context, it may also be mentioned that in Section 17B Parliament has also used the words "inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule".
These words indicate that maintenance allowance that is admissible under any rule is required to be paid irrespective of the amount which was actually being paid as maintenance allowance to the workman. But with regard to wages Parliament has used the words "full wages last drawn" indicating that the wages that were actually paid and not the amount that would be payable are required to be paid..." &%# 3. -#& .
"" & , &67 *
* "
. * "
" / #A. ". " " & , &67 *"
* "" # . * / * -#&
" <# "8
" &%#$%#$&" # &# , "
" = > .
* * 2* " " "
<#&7:: #"8 -#& " "
" * """ * &7#&&#$&&:&#$:#$&: $&#$7#$&:;#$#$&7# &#
. *.
" #$%#$& '( &) * 0* ! # &;# # December 22, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No